SREE RAJAH MALRAJU VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NARASARAOPET REPRESENTED BYTADEPALLI SAMPOORNA LAKSHMINARAYANA PANTULU GARU, CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Sri Rajah Malraju Venkatanarasimha Rao Bahadur Garu of Narasaraopet for a writ of certiorari to be issued to the three respondents who are (1) the Chairman of the Narasaraopet Municipal Council elected at a meeting on the 5 of November, 1929, (2) the Municipal Council, and (3) the Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council who presided at the meeting of the 5 of November for electing the Chairman, and for setting aside the alleged resolution of a meeting on that day declaring the 1 respondent to have been duly elected as Chairman. The petitioner is the other candidate for election.

(2.) An application was made to the Government by the petitioner for setting aside the election on the ground of various irregularities in the election; but the Government while finding that "the action of the Councillors in violating the provisions of Rule 4 of the rules for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Councils prescribing secret voting was highly irregular" did not interfere with the election in question and passed an order leaving the aggrieved parties to the legal remedies. Immediately after the said order of the Government (on the 10 of December, 1929) the present petition was filed. We issued an interim writ. The Municipal Council of Narasaraopet appear by counsel and oppose the application.

(3.) The first point that would suggest itself is the question whether the writ of certiorari ought to be issued when there is another remedy open: Under the election rules an election petition lies; but unless the statutes or bye-laws made under the statutes take away the remedy by certiorari the writ may be issued. Where it is laid down in the statutes or bye-laws made under the statutes that proceedings under them shall not be removed by the writ of certiorari, then certiorari is said to be taken away by such statutes; that is, it is taken away only by express negative words and not merely by words which direct that certain matters shall be finally determined. Vide Halsbury, Vol. 10, Section 345. But even in cases where certiorari is taken away a writ may be issued if the authority acted without jurisdiction. Vide. Halsbury, Vol. 10, Section 348. This was the procedure adopted in Ex parte Bradlaugh L.R. (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 509. See also Numdo Lal Bose V/s. The Corporation for the Town of Calcutta (1885) I.L.R. 11 C. 275. It ought to be done under exceptional circumstances only.